Over what exactly there were-bear? All I see them doing is trying to make sense of the complex world that is Megatokyo and the characters therein, and instead of just being silent about any theory or idea some of us may, or may not, have or simply chiming in every so often with the 'oh pretty comic Fred' that many of us do now-a-days -myself included-, they let their fresh mind run wild with possibilities rather than sit at the status quo that is. I personally enjoy the fresh meat, while some of their thoughts seem a little outlandish at times, it is nice to see the forum with regular posts again.

Bringer of pointless claims and false theories
Self imposed president of the 'I *heart* TWB' fan club

Over what exactly there were-bear? All I see them doing is trying to make sense of the complex world that is Megatokyo and the characters therein, and instead of just being silent about any theory or idea some of us may, or may not, have or simply chiming in every so often with the 'oh pretty comic Fred' that many of us do now-a-days -myself included-, they let their fresh mind run wild with possibilities rather than sit at the status quo that is. I personally enjoy the fresh meat, while some of their thoughts seem a little outlandish at times, it is nice to see the forum with regular posts again.

Character Analogue is a sort of Newspeak term like "Collateral Damage" , "Enhanced Interrogation" or "Extraordinary Rendition"

It doesn't mean what you think that it means

Except nobody in the comic so far has actually used the phrase "character analogue". (Ibara just refers to Miho as an "analogue", and the Inspector just says that the "subject" (obviously Miho) was removed from an "analogue support facility".)

So I am rather doubtful it means what you think it means either, not yet anyway.

You have no idea

I can't "think" because I have been told. And now I have to shut up

I didn't claim to have an "idea" about the definition of "character analogue". On the contrary, I am saying the phrase has not even been used in the comic so far.

EDIT:
I stand by what I said prior to the stealth-edit of my post. Anyone who wants to claim I'm "wrong" about the above is welcome to post an actual number of a strip in which the complete phrase "character analogue" occurs. Anything else is a non-sequitor.

Last edited by darrin on Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For those who haven't been reading SD for a long time, and haven't gone back and read the last few chapters worth of threads in the archive, some people in the discussion would be very happy if the terrible mean evil horrible wicked soul destroying Miho was violently sent back to whatever dimensional hells she arrived from.

To me it looks, like it's implied a lot (at least it looks like) that Miho is an Analogue* of something or somebody/character. (*that feels to me more like a word 'Analogy' should be actually used... subtle difference but still... ) The word by itself doesn't mean much anything, without knowing what she is an Analogue ('analogy') of. She seems to be an Analogue (analogy?) of at least one character, or of a characters' story.(That, or the term 'Analogue' has been redefined in the MT universe to mean a 'story/character analogy')
Ofc people who know what she is an Analogue of, can and do already shorten the term to just one word, because THEY know.Edit: or maybe another way to describe this, an analogue is an analogy impersonated?

Although analogy is often a more direct sort of 'significant noticeable comparison', a more 'clear correspondence' (it's from Greek/Latin and French circa 1400s) and analogous is more perhaps 'somewhat comparable in certain respects' (it's from Greek/Latin circa 1600s). What exactly depends on the context as well; logic, medicine, biology, language, etc.

In Megatokyo, as applying to whatever Miho is and does, that is indeed a unique definition. That's not well defined in MT, except by use. Given the story aspect of things, it would appear that looking to literature would be more applicable. As wiki puts it, Analogue as a literary term describes an individual motif, character, scene, event or phrase which resembles one found in another work, or a work which resembles another in terms of one or more motifs, characters, scenes, phrases or events. Bidirectional in a way, but not very specific. It's closer to the problems of ur-examples. ???, Oedipus, Ja'far, Hamlet, Dupin. Who is (or how many are) the three question marks, does such an entry exist, and do any of the specific examples in the list (and any missing from it) derive from each other directly in appreciable ways. It's not very precise in whatever correlation there may be, except that some were created before the others, so there is earlier to later. While we can't know who exactly got what from whom going forward in time, it's pretty certain Sophocles and Scheherazade and didn't get any of their ideas from Shakespeare and Poe.

It isn't clear if those in Megatokyo who have "explained" Miho actually know much of anything in detail. How correct they are about how much. Yet there is some consistency in what direction things are supposed to flow. The way the interrogator puts it, the subject has representations in works, a her ---> stories sort of thing. Both Ed and Ibara call her 'the real thing' as if she's not artificial or made up or derivative. Ed is scared then forgets that and instead embarks on a story path to destroy her as the block to him deactivating Ping, which doesn't work but he thinks so at least until she shows up again. And one might argue if she was the influence or help to others in neutralizing Ed the next time he tries. Ibara claims she's the source of a particularly powerful story type, then doesn't even get to talk to her about his ideas about specific uses of her powers. Ibara likens Ping's ability to absorb existing character/story aspects (that stem from Analogues apparently) and synthesize new ones from this, as a hollow sort-of backwards replication of what Miho is/does. Miho explains it in various ways to both Piro and Kimiko as creating and causing stories to arise, where Miho knows perhaps the direction and result but not the details, and seems unable to control specifics once started. She discusses with Kimiko characters and representations at the diner/CoE/radio show at Ikebukuro, and at the school with Piro in what she's supposed to be trying to do to create a particular narrative and how she blames Ping for it not working. The only seeming disconnect is in a non-meta way, these stories are supposed to happen within materials created, not out and about walking and touchable. Although for all the talk about stories fictional in various mediums that are all somewhat stemming somehow from aspects of Miho sort of, it appears also somewhat meta, as she has interacted directly with at least Meimi, Junko, Erika, the CoE people, Yuki in the past and present, in one way in Endgames and out and another way currently with Piro and Largo, and most recently Dom, Ed and Kimiko have been added to the list. Whatever that dividing line is, it's not clear either.

Still, most everything everyone's said and done appears to validate that things are somewhat analogous to her, not she to them. That she's not 'like another thing' at least not in some directly comparable significant way. That she's the "source" but roughly and inexactly, vague links of sorts that people feel but don't see, know are there but can't quite trace. It's not that she reminds anyone of something specific, it's more like everyone of many unspecific things. There aren't direct links to much of anything because it's not copying details, it's embodiments of abstractions. Which such can then be further enhanced by certain people portraying things adding something special of themselves to make it more than the sum of its parts. Where somebody like Erika, or Kimiko and Piro, to make the characters special because they aren't just bits and pieces of essences of whatever is from Miho, it's got more comparable emotions and specific aspects from those doing the portraying. Making the characters live, making the whole more than the sum of the parts. Not just a commercial paste with one or two bits of berry out of a vat, but hand-made, and filled with fruit and the flavors of that unique recipe.

On the contrary, I am saying the phrase has not even been used in the comic so far.

Yep, Character Analogue is not in story comic anywhere I've ever seen it. A forum-invented term that seems too limited to describe what we've seen; casts of characters, worlds, stories, narratives. Whatever it is, it's not just a character or only her. But maybe right or wrong or in between, that's best described by how Ibara explains in story what he believes about what she is.

"Tohya is an original, sweetie. The source of a particularly potent and enduring story type. Whatever happened to her, the emotive response to her story was such that it grew a life of its own. The more people it touched, the more her story grew... Until her character became far more real than she ever was. It isn't what happened to her that people want to experience over and over. It's what her story makes them feel."

Except nobody in the comic so far has actually used the phrase "character analogue". (Ibara just refers to Miho as an "analogue", and the Inspector just says that the "subject" (obviously Miho) was removed from an "analogue support facility".)

So I am rather doubtful it means what you think it means either, not yet anyway.

You have no idea

I can't "think" because I have been told. And now I have to shut up

I didn't claim to have an "idea" about the definition of "character analogue". On the contrary, I am saying the phrase has not even been used in the comic so far.

EDIT:
I stand by what I said prior to the stealth-edit of my post. Anyone who wants to claim I'm "wrong" about the above is welcome to post an actual number of a strip in which the complete phrase "character analogue" occurs. Anything else is a non-sequitor.

Okay then, let me enlighten you

Character Analogue is a term used during plot development discussions

So, oh hell no you ain't getting any proof!

You can go on being pedantic if you like BUT don't call names or level insults and don't presume to be taken seriously. The fact that at some point in the past few years that particular term escaped into the wild but will not be verified isn't relevant at all

But maybe right or wrong or in between, that's best described by how Ibara explains in story what he believes about what she is.

That would be taking Ibara to be a reliable observer. He's been depicted as enough of a flake so far that I'm not yet anywhere near willing to assume that his words on the matter straightforwardly represent Fred's actual (current or longterm, to the extent those end up even being similar ) thoughts on this portion of the plot (whatever those might be).

Yes, sure, Fred could be doing the sneaky thing of having the flaky character actually saying something sensible/"true" for a change (presumably he does that with Largo now and then ); but even if one assumes that's what's going on, for my money he is still not really saying anything coherent, just kinda rambling. "Blah blah real blah blah REALLY real blah blah feelings." I could be convinced this is someone who might potentially have something important to say about analogues, but has at this point in time tossed back enough that, while his speech isn't exactly slurred yet, is still pretty babbly. If that were the "best" description of an analogue we were going to get then I would probably not be too enthusiastic.

Folks, we're all friends here. And I'm sure we've all been on the interwebs long enough to know how easy it is to mistake people's tone when all you see is text. Keep it civil please, and try to give people the benefit of the doubt. And if you're sure they're being a jerk, then please take the high road and don't add to it.

Fred has the next comic pretty much drawn. He still needs to shade, assemble, clean, and dialogue, but hopefully that'll happen in the next day or two.

For those who haven't been reading SD for a long time, and haven't gone back and read the last few chapters worth of threads in the archive, some people in the discussion would be very happy if the terrible mean evil horrible wicked soul destroying Miho was violently sent back to whatever dimensional hells she arrived from.

I think I stated my latest thoughts on Miho lately - if not : I think, that Miho, pwnzing the long-distance relationship she had with Piro, actually thought she did it FOR him, saving him from a lifetime of atonement for a decision that may not have been his originally. He did not catch the idea and it left a hole in his life, or more like a black stain, black ink splat, masking whatever he might have felt before... black enough to look like a hole, whether you're near, or a little farther on. I'd be prepared to say, she still does love him, but through her n-th lifetime experience, she knows this wouldn't lead anywhere, and tries to bury that feeling as deep as she can. To me it looks, like there is a whole lot more to her (especially showing in the scene where she gets Kimiko to safety in the CoE after the cafe is blown up, asking about why she wants to give life to an almost dead girl; or before Kimiko takes the stage at the Animate event; In this latest chapter she only 'just' had surgery, had her place in the story taken by a 'stunt double' Kimiko, herself being ninja-edited, while something may or may not be about to happen. So much more still can happen in this chapter, the current state doesn't feel like we're anywhere near to any conclusions ... at least I hope so, because I like how it is progressing

You can go on being pedantic if you like BUT don't call names or level insults and don't presume to be taken seriously. The fact that at some point in the past few years that particular term escaped into the wild but will not be verified isn't relevant at all

But maybe right or wrong or in between, that's best described by how Ibara explains in story what he believes about what she is.

That would be taking Ibara to be a reliable observer. He's been depicted as enough of a flake so far that I'm not yet anywhere near willing to assume that his words on the matter straightforwardly represent Fred's actual (current or longterm, to the extent those end up even being similar ) thoughts on this portion of the plot (whatever those might be).

Yes, sure, Fred could be doing the sneaky thing of having the flaky character actually saying something sensible/"true" for a change (presumably he does that with Largo now and then ); but even if one assumes that's what's going on, for my money he is still not really saying anything coherent, just kinda rambling. "Blah blah real blah blah REALLY real blah blah feelings." I could be convinced this is someone who might potentially have something important to say about analogues, but has at this point in time tossed back enough that, while his speech isn't exactly slurred yet, is still pretty babbly. If that were the "best" description of an analogue we were going to get then I would probably not be too enthusiastic.

Don't forget it's from perspective of a japanese parent of a teenage girl who just recently has been introduced to some wonder of 2000's technology that would allow him to work with the 'Analogues'. That would make him, hmm, about 50 or more? So born in 1950's Japan. Worked more in this time, than he ever was home, probably. Talks to his daughter but probably has no idea where she gets her money from. Also doesn't ask questions but 'Borrows' money from his daughter when he wants to go somewhere... Was there for the advent of 2000's technology. He saw it happening, from earliest hobbyist minicomputers to that newest wonder. No wonder he despises Ping so much (such a sad idea for an interface... frankly it's sad you exist at all). So his character here is a pretty sad one. But maybe it does make him real that way?

Folks, we're all friends here. And I'm sure we've all been on the interwebs long enough to know how easy it is to mistake people's tone when all you see is text. Keep it civil please, and try to give people the benefit of the doubt. And if you're sure they're being a jerk, then please take the high road and don't add to it.

Fred has the next comic pretty much drawn. He still needs to shade, assemble, clean, and dialogue, but hopefully that'll happen in the next day or two.

Yay for the comic in progress

As for the high road, it wasn't _me_ who didn't know how to use emotes :J

i'm just gonna have to think of some place to insert TeddyWereBear in a bad place on my fanfic

I don't believe I've "forgotten" any of what you say, I just don't see how any of it should increase my willingness to accept him (yet, and especially in the context iffy was citing) as a reliable/believable observer (esp. on the subject of "analogues" whatever the heck they might be).

I don't believe I've "forgotten" any of what you say, I just don't see how any of it should increase my willingness to accept him (yet, and especially in the context iffy was citing) as a reliable/believable observer (esp. on the subject of "analogues" whatever the heck they might be).

Saa... This came out more patronising on my part than I meant to, sorry about that...
I do this in rl too and it ticks people off.

Of course what you write may be true... Ibara senior is just a caustic industry insider of whom no one ever heard, even though he spent probably half his life on the role. Of course that doesn't make him a reliable source either. But he may be just as good as any.

Oh trust me, the were-bear and I go way back, may even have to get the pipe cleaners out again. *looks at Teddy devilishly* but in retrospect, that might just end up with Tangent nuking me from orbit again.... where is he anyway?

Bringer of pointless claims and false theories
Self imposed president of the 'I *heart* TWB' fan club

Saa... This came out more patronising on my part than I meant to, sorry about that...
I do this in rl too and it ticks people off.

Of course what you write may be true... Ibara senior is just a caustic industry insider of whom no one ever heard, even though he spent probably half his life on the role. Of course that doesn't make him a reliable source either. But he may be just as good as any.

Oh I didn't think it was patronising, was just trying to keep it short. Probably I'm not being clear here... granted it's debatable where on the spectrum (of "reliability" in some sense) he lies: on the one hand yeah, he's been in the industry for so many decades as you say, on the other he's a barfly daughter-moocher who tries to pass off an obvious demotion (1159, basically "they are gonna make me do the job I was supposed to hire somebody else to do") as a cool thing.

But for me no matter where I assume he is on that spectrum, I still can't see his take on "analogues" (1240 mostly) as conveying any useful information. What concretely do we know about "analogues" that we didn't know before his CoE ramblings? Like I said, I'm willing to believe it's possible he knows something key about analogues, I'm just not holding my breath waiting to get it out of him any time soon. Rereading the above posts I should acknowledge that "best description" is in some sense technically correct (since we've had no other descriptions obviously ), I guess I just sometimes set kind of a low bar for "better than nothing" (i.e the "information" Ibara conveys in the CoE scene).

Likely the Character Analogue thing is mostly related to how it's put in 1271, character types and character representations. Of course Little Red Riding Hood is just a set of clothes to put on for Halloween if you don't have a story going along with it, and if a physical manifestation of the intense emotions of the audience coalesces from afar and arises to rip you into pieces, there's a story that goes along with it too. Actually at least two stories, the one that is all out of kilter that drew them, and everything that happens leading up to the situation and after. Multiply that by the number of characters that experience a different story from within the larger Story. So even if she is only a character analogue, rather than a story analogue, plot analogue, genre analogue, or just Analogue, there really isn't anything without a Story to put everything else into. That nobody actually says or calls her a CA in Megatokyo story anywhere ever, is just an unimportant fact, that pales in comparison to the feelings.

Not me. Nobody in MT is anywhere near anything reliable! But unreliable doesn't necessarily mean totally unbelievable or unable to be correct or fully without any merit.

It's just that it has been somewhat established (likely as solidly as anything in MT will ever be?) that Ibara and Dom and Ed likely know more about these sorts of things than most others in the stories. They know what Ping is, are within the system of cataclysm (and often exempt from certain aspects), have access to items and places nobody else much does. And Ibara seems to be the less aggressive angry emotional one, especially about Miho. He has no axe to grind, in fact he finds value in what she is and does, apparently. Like Dom wanting to hire Kimiko in a way. Ibara also appears to know Miho's story is difficult to handle, which it certainly very much seems to be. And he seems to have no reason or need to puff up Junko with what he's doing or why, including he doesn't seem to care enough to bother. She believes him, and she's not one to seem to want to, often did not. And even still, that explanation to Junko is not being taken as a fact. And we don't have to trust what he says only upon what he says. We can compare if it matches what else has been said or done. Others including the interrogator (who clearly has a separate and limited view of the situation, but it fits) Miho (who is IMO far more unreliable than Ibara anyway, but has shown or explained things like it a few times in a few ways so far) and Masamichi discussing Erika/Idols and his conversations with Erika and Miho. In some other related ways, Erika and Kimiko have covered aspects that fit as well. Actually I suppose, also most everyone trying to rescue or kill Miho recently and including right now. Not just Ibara, we have seen in story what appears to be that story-creation linked to emotion, not fact, as a thing a number of times. Stories have formed around her, in ways she described when the plot and situation were not flowing very smoothly. Maybe it's not like how she tells it to Kimiko, or what we've seen in how situations form, or in the ways others appear to immerse at times in the situation created, like with such as Ed fighting her in the schoolyard or killing her at the diner and after Ikeburkuro, her sparring with Largo or Piro here and there, or with Erika suddenly busting the two on the note passing in 1372.

Perhaps we only need one example like Ed being convinced he blew her up and killed her to never return again. Or just the more recent ill-conceived not-quite-matching stories drawing an occult mysterious arcane power that tears down the school and almost drags Miho off. Or most recently what happens when she doesn't "die" "like she's supposed to".

If that were the "best" description of an analogue we were going to get then I would probably not be too enthusiastic.

No matter how slimy and horrible as a person and father he is, Ibara is a game company rep, who seems to know some fair amount of details, and isn't all angry or vengeful or dismissive about Miho. Sure, maybe he was told nothing but untruths, but he seems to be correct that the audience glomps onto how the story makes them feel and doesn't care about facts. The sort of thing that apparently doesn't even get rid of your fans if you tell them the truth, tell them off, insult them, and then quit like Erika did.

If we're trying to determine the Megatokyo-internal definition of Analogue, there are limited options. We have the way the interrogator talks about her and names the place, and we have what Ibara says. There becomes a need to extrapolate from how it is used by those two, in what situations, and in what ways what they say matches what we've seen. Ibara didn't seem to be dragged into the story like Ed looking up her information led to, Dom dismissed her and was also somewhat yanked into a narrative, and even though Ibara was clearly wrong about hiring her (or even talking to her) beforehand he appeared all business, and not even that worried about explaining it to Junko. So Ibara should know something (apparently). Whatever his other flaws personally or in what he actually knows about Miho, he's also still the only one who has explained it. We don't have to just take that explanation on faith, of course not, we can ask does it fit or not anything else anyone has said or done. Yes, I would say, the explanation matches some of what we've seen, I can't think of anything that contradicts it in major ways. We have things like mentions by insiders of representations based off her in game stories, theres' what she's said about that and the stories and gaps and etc to Piro, it's in that Kotone story told to Kimiko, and there are a number of things that reinforce it. It matches at least to the biggest extent we're likely to get. That might be enough.

Of course it could all be a lie, or totally wrong, but "the forceful removal of the subject from that Analogue Support Facility" and the rest of ~1271, combined with "Analogues like Tohya Miho" and the rest of ~1239, linked in with what has happened and what a number of explanations have claimed, is about all there is to define the word. Does it fit or not? It does for me. YMMV.

Maybe the best way to put it starts with this sentence from 1239: "No. Those dolls are an attempt to eliminate the need for analogues like Tohya Miho." What dolls, 638 "'EDS' allows her to actually become one of the girls in the game. Elements of these girls will be absorbed into her basic personality patterns. Over time, she will become an amalgamation of all the girls in the dating simulations and visual novels you play." How much, maybe 1372 "How is this happening?? I never told Ping any of my real story!! How can she possibly be pulling me to her like this??"

There might be better ways to describe it all, but as we've also said, we can just take Analogue and use the literary definition of "an individual motif, character, scene, event or phrase which resembles one found in another work, or a work which resembles another in terms of one or more motifs, characters, scenes, phrases or events" and then fit that in with what else is in Megatokyo story that supports it.

Is Miho the source of particularly powerful story types, is she the real thing, do source and the real thing and analogue all mean the same thing? Well, Miho says she creates stories but they have to flow somewhat logically or else, that she doesn't want to be all her characters and their stories (it's unclear if Kotone (either as she explains it or from what we know so far Sight is supposed to be like) is one of the ones she doesn't want or not), that she has to die at the end to finish the story and give the audience an emotional purge (or in the case of Kotone/Kimiko, everyone else die around her and be locked away despondent and possibly pregnant). Oh, and don't forget her offspring is still in Endgames somewhere too. Whatever that story is now. And so on and so forth.

Not much is clear, is it. So where does one begin when all of one's narrators are or probably are one or more of slime, naive, ignorant, unreliable, silent, known to be wrong, known to be half-truthers or liars, or thought to be lacking any information to provide. Waiting seems a perfectly acceptable strategy.

Yes, but I meant there are people on the forum who really really hate Miho, and that's about the extent of how much else is considered. As might be said, the details are unimportant, only the feelings matter. If somebody doesn't know that Miho-despising forum-goer feels that way, and doesn't care about anything else, because it's not been explained recently, the reader may reach the wrong conclusions about posts covering such subjects but without them knowing the background or details. Which can be important even if it doesn't make them feel anything.

Not me. Nobody in MT is anywhere near anything reliable! But unreliable doesn't necessarily mean totally unbelievable or unable to be correct or fully without any merit.

No I mean "reliable/unreliable observer" in the technical sense, are we getting useful information out of him here (is the author using the character to convey things the author actually thinks, or on the contrary using him more for red herrings)? Again, after reading 1240 and its neighbors, what exactly do we know about "analogues" (actual concrete stuff, not fluff like "her character became far more real than she ever was")? Can we actually add anything specific to the lists of things "analogues" are or aren't, or can or can't do? Anything to distinguish what he's saying from tipsy rambling?

I don't know what exactly he's been doing in the "industry" these past few decades, but based on this bit (EDIT again I mean 1240 and friends) I'm leaning a lot more toward "ad copy" than "user manuals".